In a significant ruling affecting thousands of long-serving government workers, the Supreme Court has held that temporary status casual labourers in the Department of Posts are entitled to pensionary benefits even if they were never formally regularised before retirement.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment while allowing appeals filed by former postal workers and the widow of a deceased employee.
Background of the Case
The case involved three postal department workers who had served for decades as casual labourers performing duties as Night Guards. They were later granted "temporary status" under the Department of Posts' 1991 scheme designed to improve the service conditions of casual labourers.
Despite receiving benefits similar to Group D employees and continuing in service until retirement, none of them was formally regularised. After retirement, their claims for pension and related benefits were rejected by authorities on the ground that regularisation was a mandatory condition for pension eligibility.
The employees approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in their favour. However, the Patna High Court later set aside those orders, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Court Examines Rights of Long-Serving Temporary Workers
While examining the scheme governing temporary status employees, the Court noted that workers who completed three years of service after receiving temporary status were treated at par with temporary Group D employees for several service benefits.
The Bench observed that the purpose of the scheme was not to keep workers in a perpetual temporary category but to progressively integrate them into the regular service framework.
The Court emphasized that employees who had worked continuously for decades while performing duties similar to regular staff could not be denied social security benefits merely because the administration failed to issue formal regularisation orders.
Pension Is a Constitutional Right, Not a Charity
The judgment strongly reiterated the legal position that pension is not a discretionary benefit.
The Bench observed,
“Pension is not a bounty but a vested and enforceable constitutional right.”
It further noted that pension represents deferred wages earned through years of service and cannot be denied because of administrative inaction or financial considerations.
The Court also highlighted that the State, as a model employer, must ensure fair treatment of workers who have spent long years serving government departments.
Key Finding of the Supreme Court
Addressing the central issue in the case, the Court answered the legal question in clear terms.
The Bench held:
“A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence of regularisation.”
According to the Court, once such employees completed three years of service after obtaining temporary status, they became entitled to all benefits available to temporary Group D employees, including pensionary benefits under the applicable service rules, provided they met the qualifying service requirement.
Relief Granted to Employees and Family Pension Claim
Applying the principle to the facts of the case, the Court found that all three employees had completed well over the minimum qualifying period required for pension.
The widow of deceased employee Suraj Sah was held entitled to pensionary benefits accrued to her husband along with family pension. The other two retired employees were also declared entitled to pension and consequential retirement benefits.
While recognizing their entitlement, the Court limited arrears to a period of three years and two months before the filing of their applications before the Tribunal.
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court's judgments and restored relief in favour of the employees.
The Union of India and concerned authorities have been directed to calculate and release pensionary and consequential retirement benefits within three months. The Court further ordered that if payment is delayed beyond that period, interest at 6% per annum will be payable from the date the benefits became due until actual disbursement.
The appeals were accordingly allowed.
Case Details
Case Title: Bhikhani Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 28802–28804 of 2019
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Decision Date: 1 June 2026
